.. to be appalled by this news about Jacob Rees-Mogg on GMB today

He doesn't have to represent most women. No MP does, male or female.

However, I do dislike how late in pregnancy an abortion is allowed.

I think that would depend on what you are calling a late pregnancy abortion Frannytoo. I think it is extremely cruel to make a women carry a baby that is known to be dead and deliver it if there is any other way. However, this is what happens in Catholic Ireland.

He is entirely welcome to hold whatever beliefs he wants, however everyone should be aware of his ideas and that the church he belongs to will not allow him to support abortion no matter what the circumstances. This means he cannot support a woman's right to choose, no matter what her faith or lack of it. Is it unreasonable to think that he is therefore unable to represent most women?
According to a 2004 memorandum by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion laws should be informed by their priest of the Church's teaching and warned to refrain from receiving the Eucharist or risk being denied it until they end such activity.[63] This position is based on Canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and has also been supported, in a personal capacity, by Archbishop Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church after the pope himself.[64] Pope Francis reaffirmed this position on March 2013, when he stated that "[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals."

...oh,and this is a government that's propped up by the DUP who, I believe are opposed to abortion....

I believe JRM said this the other day on television. I was also under the impression that he was one of the favourites to become the next Conservative leader? I'm also under the impression that this great repeal bill will give the government more power to do what the hell they like. Of course, I could be worrying unduly....

Baggs, I cannot agree with the comparison between Rees-Mogg and Corbyn, Corbyn is not a man of principle , he has few principles

@AnnieBach, you're right, it just seems like it. And I keep mixing him up with John Redwood, they both have the same effect on me.

0.1 percent of abortions are carried out after 24 weeks.

People like JRM for his impeccable manners and unflappable good humour. And he has principles. Like Jeremy Corbyn, another popular politician. In both cases, they have been (are in JRM's case) good back bench MPs. Sticking to their principles does not mean those principles are necessarily right for the country, nor do principles automatically qualify someone for high office. I wouldn't want either of them as prime minister.

Fionac late abortions are very rare and only allowed in circumstances wher it would be detrimental to the mothers health or where the baby has a condition thats incompatable with life.Abortion as contraception is largely a myth it still needs TWO doctors to sign off an abortion and they wont do it without good reason...even if the reason to you is frivolous,like finances or the mother being 13 .The choce should ALWAYS be the mothers .I hear all these"good" people talking about being pro life ..and thats fine but where they are concerned the commitment stops at the birth..these same people are the ones who complain about single mothers on benefits...so WHO would you suggest supports these mums who are forced to go through with unplanned pregnancies? There are already thousands of children in homes and nobody wants to take them so where are the homes for the ones who we've decided MUST be born ,even when its NOT the choice of the mother?

Is he the person whose wife has just had her 6th child?
What would he know about this piece of news he's a man.

FionaC - get real.

Will a child of 10 or 11 who has been raped even know about the morning after pill?

Will all the trafficked women who can hardly speak English and are not allowed out on their own be able to get this pill?

What evidence do you have for saying that the majority of women who seek abortions are using abortions as a means of contraception?

Let's have the statistics rather than your opinion.

Decades of silence? He has only been a MP for seven years , not even one decade

You have to wonder why this complete nobody of an MP who has been on the back benches for years, is suddenly popping up everywhere and being sold as the Prime Minister in waiting. He's only just to the left of UKIP, and is from that rump of the party that pushed for the disastrous Brexit.

Now suddenly he's on all the chat shows and panel games, from decades of silence. Of course he is good copy, that languid posh-totty MP ForThe19thCentury style makes good TV. But why now? Of course TMay is wobbling towards oblivion but why him, now? Who is making this happen?

Has everyone forgotten that it is a baby we are talking about? Is it OK to terminate (kill) a baby up to 24 weeks but not the day after. Some groups are even talking about extending abortion to even later. If anyone is raped, use the morning after pill. For every one else do not use abortion as a form of contraception.

And he kept his cool, remained calm and polite

JRM has become a very popular MP with the general public and has a large following. I think this question was asked out of pure mischief making by a journalist.

libra, thank you for the link, I didn't see the interview.

I have even more respect for this man now. If only some here were as less judgemental as this man is

JRM is certainly entitled to his views - after all we live in a democracy - or so it is said. The fact that he is an over-privileged misogynist is a separate issue but one which I hope all sentient women in the country will bear in mind when his doting band of followers push for him to become PM. Actually Farron failed miserably in the last election and his views on abortion and same-sex marriage were the same as JRM's so let's take hope from the fact that he was roundly rejected by he nation. On the issue of JRM's beliefs, I would just add that being so pious is easy when you belong to the landed gentry. Quite frankly with his wealth he can afford his six children, and more besides. I wonder how true he would be to his beliefs if all his wealth were suddenly stripped from him and he found himself scrambling around for rented accommodation in the private sector, with a job paying £30K maximum, and a wife pregnant by mistake.

He's entitled to his opinion same as everyone else I just hope he respects the opinion of the people who disagree with him

Interesting article here

I am a Christian but do not oppose abortion if the child is conceived by force. However, I do dislike how late in pregnancy an abortion is allowed. I would never condemn a woman for not wanting to continue with an unwanted child.

Does it really matter what he believes????

He is guided by his faith. Are you saying he shouldn't have faith, just because you don't share it?

Blair has religious faith, May has faith, many, many PMs before them had a faith which guided their personal lives. Church-going was the norm not many decades ago.

Rees Mogg is entitled to his faith and beliefs.

No PM can govern without the backing of the cabinet, party and parliament. RM supporters aren't exactly making themselves well known at Westminster, or coming out in their hundreds to support him.

My view is that if you hold public office your private beliefs should remain that, private and not voiced. The same tends to apply in every workplace.

I'd like to be able to read the minds of some who post here. Their private beliefs wouldn't be for public consumption either.

Moggs are based on his faith, and I respect that his faith is important to him. It's a shame that he was pressed into answering questions that have no bearing whatsoever on his ability to do his job.

And don't forget the gay marriage bit.

So, does this man really believe the sins of the fathers must be visited on future generations?

This from Psychology today.

"...a study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first degree relatives. Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent were mildly mentally impaired. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group — the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers’ relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect"